Prison Call Fees Increasing After FCC Cap, How “Legal Financial Obligations” Also Burden Poor Inmates, and More

AFTER FCC PUTS CAP ON EGREGIOUS OUT-OF-STATE PHONE CALL RATES FOR PRISONERS—MAJOR PHONE PROVIDER MAKES UP THE LOST REVENUE BY INCREASING LOCAL CALL RATES

Last August, a Federal Communications Commission ruling placed a cap on how much companies can charge inmates (through their families) for interstate calls.

Research has consistently shown that contact with family is extremely important for a former offender’s successful reentry into their community, yet many families simply cannot afford to visit loved ones who are locked up far from home, so they rely on the telephone. But outsized fees for phone calls can be a huge financial burden and a significant barrier to family connection.

The problem appears to be that the FCC’s cap only applies to out-of-state calls, and the largest prison phone company, Securus Technologies, has reportedly increased fees levied against inmates’ families for local calls to make up for the rate reduction for out-of-state calls. The rate increases have resulted in an overall higher cost to prisoners’ loved ones.

Last week, the Human Rights Defense Center filed a complaint with the FCC about Securus’ fee shift.

Mignon Clyburn, a federal regulator who pushed for the rate caps, called the local rate increase the “most egregious case of market failure” he had seen in his 16 years at the FCC.

International Business Times’ Eric Markowitz has more on the issue. Here’s a clip:

At Weld County Jail in Greeley, Colorado, for instance, rates went up 52 percent for a local call. And at a jail in Holdenville, Oklahoma, rates recently rose 43 percent in just 24 hours — from $4.03 on June 19 to $5.75 on June 20. Both jails have contracts with Securus. Right now, it’s unclear how many other jails and prisons have raised their prices.

Rick Smith, chief executive of Securus Technologies, defended the change in an email and pointed the finger toward the FCC. Smith argued that because the FCC eliminated fees, set rates below their costs, and did not ban commission payments (i.e. revenue sharing with sheriffs an prison officials) the company “had to increase rates as long as we received facility approval in order to stay neutral financially.”

“Bottom line,” Smith wrote, “the lower rates that were highly publicized never went into effect because the FCC failed to do their job and tried to set rates below our cost. There are no rate caps on intrastate and local calls, only on interstate calls. I understand that inmates and families are upset that rates didn’t decrease, it’s the FCC’s fault.”

Wright, the inmate advocate, conceded what Securus is doing isn’t illegal. “While Securus may not be violating the law … there is no question that they are not only violating the spirit of the Commission’s Order, but doing so in a blatant manner that indicates their contempt for the FCC’s reforms and authority,” Wright wrote in his official complaint.

When a customer emailed a Securus to complain, the company responded: “Due to an order by the FCC, effective June 20th certain fees related to inmate calling will be reduced or eliminated. As a result, you may see modifications and rebalancing of calling rates at that time to offset fees that have been eliminated or reduced.”

This offsetting, however, has real-life impacts.

---

PHONE CHARGES ARE NOT THE ONLY UNFAIR FINES INMATES ARE BURDENED WITH…”LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS” ARE ANOTHER USURIOUS FEE THAT CAN CRIPPLE INMATES AND THEIR FAMILIES

Another incredible financial burden placed on justice system-involved people by a growing number of local governments nationwide, is called a “legal financial obligation” (LFO). Jurisdictions charge defendants thousands of dollars in bench-warrant fees, filing-clerk fees, public defender fees, jury fees, incarceration fees, and more, in order to increase funding for their criminal justice systems. Not surprisingly, these fines, often carrying prohibitively expensive interest rates, have a hugely disparate impact on low-income and minority defendants.

And in 44 states, if formerly incarcerated people “willfully” default on paying these fees, they can be locked back up and slammed with even more LFOs.

The Atlantic’s Alana Semuels has more on the issue. Here’s a clip:

The interest charged on LFOs can be prohibitive for some former prisoners, adding thousands of dollars on top of the fines and fees they already can’t pay. For instance, on average, people in Washington State were sentenced to LFOs of $1,347. But that amount can increase significantly if individuals can only pay $5 a month. Many realize they may never pay off their LFOs, according to Harris.

The uptick in LFOs comes as states look for ways to pay for their corrections system while facing other revenue shortfalls. The fees levied on the formerly incarcerated include bench-warrant fees, filing-clerks fees, court-appointed attorney fees, crime-lab analysis fees, DNA-database fees, jury fees, and incarceration costs. They come in different forms: Fines are fixed financial penalties for given offenses, fees are charges for costs of using the justice system—and surcharges are levied on top of those—as a percentage of the total cost. States also charge for restitution and the cost of collection, and add interest surcharges for people on payment plans.

The percentage of prison inmates with court-imposed monetary sanctions exploded from 1991 to 2004, according to a study by Harris, Heather Evans, and Katherine Beckett. In 1991, just 25 percent of inmates reported receiving court-ordered fines and sanctions, by 2004, 66 percent did.

---

EDITORIAL – NOT ANOTHER NARROW, “HEADLINE-DRIVEN” BILL TO CHANGE SEXUAL ASSAULT LAWS

In 2012, 15-year-old Audrie Pott committed suicide after three teens sexually assaulted her while she was unconscious, and then texted photos of her body to fellow high school students. In response, California lawmakers passed Audrie’s Law, which increased penalties for sexually assaulting someone who is unconscious. Unfortunately, the law was poorly though through. The scope of Audrie’s Law was too narrow and left major disparities in sex crime sentencing laws.

State legislators should not make the same mistake in the wake of the the unpopular Brock Turner rape sentence, says the LA Times editorial board. Instead lawmakers should take the opportunity to carefully examine the state’s rape and assault laws and disparities in sentencing that might have contributed to Turner’s lenient sentence. Here’s a clip:

It would have been nice if the brutal attack, the sentences and the headlines and outrage that followed had spurred a more exhaustive reexamination and overhaul of California rape and assault law rather than a bill so narrowly focused on the circumstances of one incident. It would have been helpful if lawmakers had taken the opportunity to thumb through their statute books and had discovered the continuing imponderable discrepancy between sentences not just for juveniles but for adults who rape conscious victims and those who rape unconscious ones. If they had, they might have had a more rational legal framework in place than the one that allowed Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky to sentence former Stanford student Brock Turner in June to a mere six months in jail plus probation for the sexual assault of an unconscious woman after a party in 2015.

But they didn’t, and the maddening result is that lawmakers are now repeating their mistake by rushing to pass more headline-driven bills tailored to the circumstances of a particular case and the highly unpopular sentence that followed.

When the Brock Turner sentence hit the headlines, Assemblywoman Nora Campos (D-San Jose) quickly announced that she would introduce a bill on sentencing in cases in which an unconscious victim is raped (it’s worth noting that Campos is running against state Sen. Jim Beall, another San Jose Democrat, who is author of Audrie’s Law). She was beaten to the punch by AB 2888, a bill that once covered funding for food displays at California fairs, but was hastily rewritten and now prohibits probation for a variety of sex crimes, including rape or sexual assault of an unconscious person.